Good examples thank you for taking the time to dig them out, no doubt crest were donexwith best intentions with litle guidance as not everyone are aware if the regs. Incidently the ONLY official way to get a crest approved is via college of heralds which understandably some squadrons wont want to pay as it is not cheap Incidentally we were only the second squadron to do this, it cost £350 but it meets all the regs. no copyright breaches even the then Commandant Air Cadets gave his nod of acknowledgement. Luckilly we git a grant to cover costs.
Now in my 30th year as staff so see it both ways, but also seeing too much layers of middle management of yeah/neigh sayers who hold no value apart from adding 10 once worth putting more workload down to the units, better empowerment with guidance is better than asking for permission every 5 minutes. Anyhow getting back on subject the ONLY offical route of approval for official crests is via College of Heralds (we were 2nd squadron in corps to do it) so WExO or any other peson who may have an opinion will not be able to give official approval and many are probably just as unaware of regs as the so called rogue OCs. Most crests are unofficial personalised to their unit, not to everones taste but aside from copyright rules are not controlled. Ultimately it will be up to the corps MCO team to decide whether they think crests are suitable for public viewing on new website so auto grab wouldn’t work and i cant see a line of volunteers to scrutinise all the crests so if they are not offensive dont fix what isnt broken. But of course there are sone who want to take the corps back to 1960s autocratic level of do as i say mentality.
There are also wing /region/ corps staff who add their own oddities, wrong interpretations or uneccessary layers of bureaucracy then throw teddies out cot when challenged by OCs who actually know what they are doing. Been in corps long enough to know some care more about themselves being right than actually delivering to cadets. or simply 40 years. Remember it is a cadet organisation no one will die if a crest is slightly the wrong colour.
Although predict if Squadrons already have them they’ll be in use on Squadron websites and SM pages so already in the public domain…
…but i do get what you’re saying. Having them on the main organisation website offers authenticity
I have always been under the impression that they’re badges and incorrect to refer to them asa crest?
[/thread drift]
Correct.
1 Like
Im jist gonna leave this here so we can start talking about the website again
2 Likes
Ah that thread.
When i had energy to give fudges about anything.
Now its all used up just trying to unlock the door at Sqn and keep the lights on.
2 Likes
Badges, crests, shields, coat of arms, heralds etc just predantics I think the original arguement is the design not what people want to call them to try and justify their actions, but you are right they are already in public domain with no complaints so just 1 or 1 control freaks who want squadrons to have no identity and bow to their ‘superior’ knowledge as no doubt rafac hq will say they are unable to vet 900+ units so it is easier to say no crests shields badges etc
Insignia: A distinguishing badge or emblem of military rank, office, or membership of an organization.
Crest: A distinctive device representing a family or corporate body, borne above the shield of a coat of arms (originally as worn on a helmet) or separately reproduced, for example on writing paper.
Emblem: A heraldic device or symbolic object as a distinctive badge of a nation, organization, or family.
Badge: A small piece of metal, plastic, or cloth bearing a design or words, typically worn to identify a person or to indicate membership of an organization or support for a cause.
Putting right/wrong aside Found this which just shows why different people use different terms and shows world is not as black and white as ww want it to be 
to me that makes it clearer not less so.
the image is not an insignia, it is not a crest as there are no coat of arms or shields in the organisation (to my knowledge - and if there were then in that case a crest would make sense)
not an emblem for the definition given.
Badge - best fit and in this case, in our organisation/parent organisation the chosen name for the image in question.
2 Likes
No.
The College of Arms instructs that they are reffered to as ‘Badges’.
Its not a dictionary definition. Its the Proper Noun for the item. As from the definers themselves.
1 Like
I agree, but others interpret differently, at end of day its just terminology abd no one will get hurt if they call it a crest. I think the issues being debated on this thread is design and control.Understandably those who have been using a design for past umpteen years are not going to roll over and relinguish their design just because a new website has been launched. I look at it several ways, either voluntarily get approved via CofH(may be cost prohibited) or in same stance as corps banner there should be only 1 official badge(crest/emblem/insignia lol) but units may use their own, all new designs should meet guidelines which should be promulgated via MCO hence self regulated with no need to beg wings for approval but checks during annual inspectioncould be made by sectir commanders, Whilst understandable there are regulations, compliance has been allowed to drift over the years (and not just gecause OCs are nit toeing the line, as the line has faded) and it is not economic to bin all the hoodies, caps etc that may not be to correct standard but do promote units in a positive manner. Guess we all have different opinions.
I don’t disagree I was just trying to demonstrate why others may without malice call it something different, we went through CofA process so I agree with you.
i disagree it is faded, it is simply ppl not toeing the line - and the reason being there is no penalty for non compliance. It doesn’t take long to find examples which do not conform but it isn’t corrected so people carry on - others see neighbouring units “good idea” and copy it not knowing any better believing if X unit could do so why not them…
it is simply something that doesn’t fall under anyone’s control except the Wing/Rgn OCs/WExOs to manage and is a very low priority on what is a long list of “to-dos” for those individuals
1 Like
I can think of a couple off-hand that I’d say are “inappropriate” in the sense that they’re not appropriate for our purposes (rather than being offensive):
“Like Lightning We Strike” - You “Strike”? You’re a cadet Squadron; what do you “strike”?
“Attack to Defend” - Eh?
But my personal favourite is a team rather than a Squadron… “Lorem Ipsum” 
Well done. That was clearly proofed before it went to print in big 5 foot vinyl stickers.
Ok where is the exact RAFAC policy that outlines or signposts the regulations and when was it published and when was the last official audit if badges . , this continues accusation of OCs not toeing the line I dont agree with as i dont believe it is a deliberate act of insubordination its more ignorance because the imaginary line to tow is simply difficult for some to find, and if it has been crossed it is at all levels as not challenging possible breaches by higher echelons of command is also part of the so called problem.
Indeed… But let’s remember where this conversation started and where my original comments came from… There was a suggestion that Sqn badges be pushed automatically to the public website. No one will die if a badge is wrong, but that doesn’t mean that it should go to the website where it will appear to be fully endorsed.
That is of course true. As you say, an official HQ website ought to be correct and squeaky clean. We don’t need any more C&D orders from Warner Brothers.
Since that’s a response to my words, I’ll comment… The Line hasn’t faded around here; I’ve explained it umpteen times. Many are keen to get it ‘right’, especially because they want to go down the route of formal approval; so having a good idea of what might be acceptable for their motto and charges is key from the start.
Some people just choose to wilfully ignore it.
1 Like
And I can think of at least 1 that got told off for copyright infringement…
Was that because of the images or the motto? I’m wasn’t aware of mottos which had fallen foul. I’d be interested to hear what it was.